Thursday July 17, 2014 is unlikely to be a date that the global tobacco industry will ever forget.

At 1am in the Australian morning an embargo was lifted on a set of numbers that drove a stake deep into the heart of Big Tobacco's best efforts to deny that plain tobacco packaging had made any impact on Australians' smoking.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) released the results of its latest national survey of drug, alcohol and tobacco use, involving 23,855 people. These surveys have been conducted every three years since 1991, when 24.3 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over smoked on a daily basis.

In December 2013, this figure had almost halved to 12.8 per cent, the lowest in the world after Sweden, which has 11.8 per cent daily smoking in addition to 12.1 per cent (20.7 per cent of men) using smokeless snus tobacco daily.

Moreover, the percentage fall between 2010 and 2013 was a record 15.2 per cent. The average percentage decline across the nine triennial surveys since 1991 had been 7.6 per cent, with the previous biggest fall being 11 per cent.

So what was in play that might have caused such a dive? Other than the routine twice-yearly CPI tax increases in each of 2011, 2012 and 2013, bans on point-of-sale retail displays, a continuation of anti-smoking campaigning throughout the period in question, and measures like smoke-free restaurants and pubs that have been in place for many years, the elephant-in-the-room explanatory variable was the implementation of plain packaging in December 2012.

Together with an almost continuous national news diet of debate about the policy throughout much of the three years in question, no other policy or program presents as a plausible candidate.

In the weeks before this data bombshell exploded, The Australian newspaper ran a campaign involving three front-page stories, and a full-page of articles by journalists and contributors, some of whom are affiliated with the IPA. They drew on internal tobacco industry data that was never made available for public scrutiny.

This mystery data purported to claim a 0.3 per cent increase in consumption following plain packs. The Australian Treasury quietly released tobacco customs and excise data showing a fall of 3.4 per cent in 2013 relative to 2012 when tobacco plain packaging was introduced.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics also released data on expenditure on tobacco for the December 2012 ($3.508 billion) and the March 2013 ($3.405 billion) quarters, showing plain packaging was followed by a 2.9 per cent fall in consumption.

The timing of The Australian's campaign coincided with a final consultation period in England preceding a final decision on a stated intention to introduce plain packs in that country.

July 17 unleashed some of the most desperate straw-clutching from the industry and its blogosphere errand boys I have ever seen.

Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris opened the batting, claiming there was no change in the long-term downward trend. In a press release BAT, like Imperial, said the fall was "in line with historical trends". It wasn't. It was the biggest percentage fall ever recorded since the surveys commenced.

Next, they highlighted the impact of the 2010 tax rise. There had been a 25 per cent tobacco tax increase in early May 2010, but the first five months impact of that rise coincided with the data collection period (April 29 to September 14, 2010) for the previous AIHW survey, published in 2011.

Like Monty Python's Black Knight talking about "just a flesh wound" after losing all four limbs, this is not likely to be the last round of denials from Big Tobacco.

Then they referred to the December 2013 12.5 per cent tax rise as an influence. But data collection for the 2011-2013 AIHW report occurred between July 31 and December 1, 2013 - the day an extra 12.5 per cent tobacco tax was introduced. It could therefore have not influenced the data showing the fall.

They also explained that the 12.8 per cent prevalence figure was a fudge because it was only daily smokers. It didn't include "casual" smokers, whom we were told would lift the true "incidence figure" to 16.4 per cent. (And note that BAT apparently doesn't know the basic difference between incidence and prevalence.)

But they couldn't even get that right. The AIHW data showed 12.8 per cent daily, 1.4 per cent weekly, and 1.6 per cent less than weekly, making 15.8 per cent. Pathetically, here was BAT desperate to claim as their own those who admit to smoking a cigarette once in a blue moon. Note that the prevalence of those who smoked at any frequency (daily, weekly and less than weekly) fell by almost 13 per cent between 2010 and 2013, another record fall, more than double the average three-yearly declines over the previous 20 years.

Then they whined that because the data included those aged under 17 (where only 3.4 per cent smoked daily), this would have artificially deflated the "true" figure. This ignores that the 14 years and over figure had been standard in every year since the surveys commenced in 1991, and that between the 2010 and 2013 surveys, daily smoking fell in every age group above 18 years, with the exception of those aged over 70, which increased slightly from 5.6 per cent to 5.8 per cent.

However, a tiny ray of hope remained. A tobacco-loving English blogger noticed that in the 12-17 year age group (the principal target of plain packaging legislation) the percentage of daily smokers actually rose from 2.5 per cent to 3.4 per cent.

The jubilant blogger took the trouble to construct a bold graph that emphasised this massive uplift. But he failed to tell his readers that for five of 10 data cells that made up the figures, the standard error was more than 50 per cent ("too unreliable for general use") and another two cells with lower standard errors "should be used with caution").

Citi, the global market investment advisers, was in no doubt about the meaning of the data, saying it provided "the best data" to support the British government's imminent decision to legislate plain packs and that the data would "substantially undermine" the tobacco industry's argument that there was no good evidence that plain packaging would achieve its stated aims.

Like Monty Python's Black Knight talking about "just a flesh wound" after losing all four limbs, this is not likely to be the last round of denials from Big Tobacco. But following their hollow denials of impact, they are now little more than laugh-a-minute spectator sport.

Simon Chapman AO is professor of public health at Sydney University. His book Removing the Cancer Emperor's Clothes: tobacco plain packaging in Australia will be published later this year by Sydney University Press. View his full profile here.

Mick Malin:

23 Jul 2014 1:20:52pm

The Australian should be condemned and held up for ridicule as the dis-honest, biased pathetic rag it has become. As for the journalist who participated in this mass-deception of the Australian public they should be shamed and forever have this vile deception as a precursor for any future articles they produce.

Mike of Ulster:

Developed by I think Hill & Knowlton PR, in the 1960s, when the scientific evidence came in, tobacco tar causes cancer.

The strategy: since scientific method provides a fair degree of certainty - H&K said, manufacture doubt. Do anything and everything to raise suspicion of the data. Promote alternative explanaltions, even if they're unlikely. Make it look sexy and attractive, to have a skeptical attitude. Make people want to have one.

JohnM:

23 Jul 2014 10:58:51am

The cigarette companies were taken to court and in a court case you can use whatever defence you think sounds credible. (Check Baden-Clay's defence against his murder charge if you doubt me.) The cigarette companies were therefore using their prerogative in terms of legal defence.

Compare that with climate change questions. There has been no court case. There have been few debates, probably because the alarmists have lost what debates have been held. There is also considerable scientific doubt. The IPCC admits that climate models have failed and yet draws its conclusions from those failed climate models.

There's heaps to question about climate matters and it's notable that alarmists and "believers" won't argue the science but put up phony analogies as if that conclusive settles the matter.

city_side:

23 Jul 2014 1:11:22pm

Thank you for saying it. In addition to taking up peoples time it also makes people think that there is a closer to 50/50 split in the argument when people keep saying "but, but... " manufacturing doubt. It's sad that even with an article explaining how it worked for big tobacco we get more of the same types of arguments here. I worry for the human race...

Albo :

23 Jul 2014 3:43:19pm

The only aspect of "no doubt" in the smoking debate is that one group of Australian consumers are being discriminated against both socially and financially for their choice if "unhealthy" but legal lifestyle !And we have discrimination leaders like this author boasting of the success of his discrimination campaign !The hypocrisy here, in this day of indignation and activism regarding any iota of discriminatory behaviour of almost anything in our community , is beyond pale !

stalga:

23 Jul 2014 8:07:32pm

Incognito, hi. I believe that part of PR training is to never admit blame and always respond to an accusation by counter- accusing. You can see the formula and the 'word salad' once it is bought to your attention.

People like JohnM persistently contaminate sites like this by diminishing the potential of participants to engage in constructive and civil discourse.

Theos:

23 Jul 2014 1:27:14pm

JohnM - you illustrate perfectly the denialist's tactics.

You try to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. You misrepresent the views of the IPCC with your use of the term "failed". You label mainstream scientists, and those who accept the mainstream science as "alarmists". You claim there is "considerable scientific doubt" when there is essentially no doubt regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change (obviously there is some variation of opinion regarding the severity of any future climate change). You remind me of creationist Ken Ham who when discussing evolution says, "some scientists suggest ...", clearly misrepresenting the actual status of evolution within the scientific community.

You assert that "alarmists and believers" (ie people who accept the science) won't argue the science, but that is the exact opposite of the truth. Those who accept the science do indeed argue the science. Those who deny the science dismiss, deny or misrepresent the science. And anyway, the place the science is argued is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - not on internet forums. If you honestly believed that you had a valid scientific argument that contradicted the current scientific consensus, then you should publish it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Bert Wills:

24 Jul 2014 7:15:02am

JohnM is stating his point of view. Nothing sinister in that. Scientists are not Gods either, they said DDT was harmless, Monsanto has scientists who say GM Food is harmless and the Glysophate residue in GM Food hasn't been proven to add to the Cancer epidemic. .Yet.

Dove:

LeftRightOut:

23 Jul 2014 2:18:22pm

JohnM

Please provide evidence to your claims that the supporters (not alarmists) of climate change science have lost debates. You may notice the writer of this article and many other writers on reputable newspapers do provide supporting evidence for their statements.

Not only do you provide an unsupported statement, you also use a language (alarmists) that you chose to apply rather than commonly used language in an attempt to distract from the truth and impose your perception.

timothyh:

I have had my suspicions about JohnM for some time, but this post of his cements my view that he is actually a (very effective) shock trooper for the alarmist contingent! His comment perfectly illustrates exactly what is meant by 'manufacturing doubt'. It is quite brilliant really, in the way it captures all the blind arrogance and entitled ignorance of denialism generally, whether that denialism is about tobacco harm, climate change, or whatever.

JohnM is the best advocate the climate movement can possibly have. No, really! His intelligent and damning parodies of the wilful stupidity and dangerous obstructionism of denialists are witheringly accurate and excruciatingly funny. Well done again, JohnM. Thank you for your unfailing support of climate change 'alarmists' everywhere.

It is masterful, the way he withdraws tactically from any meaningful response to the devastatingly convincing, articulate and meticulously researched rebuttals he provokes. This ensures that his initial puerile and unsupported arguments stand undiluted in all their risibly illogical nakedness. JohnM is truly the anointed saint of the 'alarmist' vanguard.

Amateur Observer:

23 Jul 2014 10:03:36pm

Dear JohnM

Some questions for you regarding your climate opinions:

Are you employed to deny climate science?Do you gain a benefit (directly or indirectly) from denying climate science?Have you been involved in a political campaign that directed your views against climate science?Do you believe in using best evidence to resolve scientific questions of global importance?

TrevorN:

23 Jul 2014 1:57:17pm

One thing is non deniable about both freely available cigarettes and climate change induced weather extremes: they both have the proven capacity to kill millions of innocent people if they are left unchecked.

LeftRightOut:

23 Jul 2014 2:28:37pm

What's worth more to the community - health or wealthy?

As a lawyer I can predict your response, however, there are many of us who are concerned not only about our own health but about the health of the general community and the planet. You might want to check election survey's which tend to display a very high requirement for governments to improve health and education.

Just an Ol Chap:

24 Jul 2014 4:00:37am

Well you must not be a very smart lawyer because election surveys do not dictate law. Governments power is devired from the peoples and defined and >>> confined <<< to those listed in section 51 of the Constitution. No where does it say in the law or the constitution that the government has a "requirement" to improve health. Your advocating fascism / communism.

Do you even know anything about the liberalism tenets of freeedom and liberty that the westminister system was founded on.

If I want to smoke thats my damn right , its my body not yours , I dont need your nanny state telling me how to live my life or what to do with my OWN body or lifestyle.

I turn 87 this year and it is absolutly appaling to see how uneducated young people are these days on the aspects and tenets of freedom that myself and even your great grandparents fought for. Even these dumb fools in both sides of government and the courts that trick you into relinquishing your common law rights away or making you think you dont have any rights as they lesgislate your rights away in a heartbeat.

LeftRightOut:

24 Jul 2014 8:12:35am

Firstly, I was referring to Peter being the lawyer.

Second, laws are often dictated by populism, as you may be aware, laws are passed by elected officials. The elected officials don't last if they produce unpopular laws - just ask Howard, Rudd & Gillard. Each election the politicians promise to improve health & education. Not because it's a legal requirement but because failure to address it leaves the public angry.

Third, the reason for a nanny state is because some people do not understand what is appropriate and think that their decisions have no consequence on others - heard of passive smoking, how many drug addicts turn to crime to fund their habbit? I had my first cigarette when I was 8. I quit nearly 30 years later. Many who start smoking were unaware of the risk or had little regard for the risk at the time. While I new by my late teens that is was wrong I was addicted and struggled through many attempts to quit. My right to chose was compromised by the tobacco industries deliberate addition of addictive substances.

Fourth, many are uneducated in the concept of decision making. We are educated to follow suite. Then there are those out there who deliberately undermine the truth and feed misinformation (as per the article).

True freedom comes with knowledge and understanding of all by all. I think we are a long way from that. The current government is keen to reduce accessibility to quality education for all, and is keen to provide misinformation or hide the truth. Industry is determined to provide misinformation to protect their profits. The government is elected to ensure the country and it's citizens are safe. If you want your version of freedom we can disband the army and police force and see what results.

Bert Wills:

24 Jul 2014 7:23:32am

LeftRightOut, we need to balance Health and Wealth. But when the chips are down, individuals must look after their own health, and indeed have a right to the proverb "To Live and Let Live." Its as simple as that.

stalga:

23 Jul 2014 7:41:06pm

Peter "The Lawyer", why is your level of of articulation and use of grammar consistently below the standard of an undergraduate? Why do you use quotes when you type the words climate change? Why do you attempt to portray corporations as small entities in comparison to 'world governments'?

FlapDoodle:

23 Jul 2014 8:00:27am

This is good news. This is one industry that I am happy to see go offshore although the Government should move to stop the tobacco industry's boats as well - something that would be more beneficial to the nation than the current military exercise.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 11:51:31am

The drop in OFFICIAL sales is all about the extortionate prices. Remember last year the woman who was caught with a suitcase full of cigarettes that were no doubt bought from a free country in Asia to be sold on our black market. Yes, that means less money for taxpaying corporations like BATA and a lot less tobacco excise for the Commonwealth. It does NOT mean smoking rates have dropped.

For example, what were OFFICIAL Ice sales last year? Zero. Woohoo, we've solved the problem. What about the Heroin on our streets? Hold on, I'll check the OFFICIAL sales figures. Excellent, zero. Maybe we should advise other countries how to sove their illicit drug trade. It must be that the little bags that it comes in are devoid of branding. What about marijuana? Surely, someone in Australia last year smoked some amount of marijuana. Wait. Sheesh, again the OFFICIAL sales figures for marijuana are showing nil. So next time you smell some marijuana at a party or something, just know you must be imagining things.

The fact is, when we force tobacco users (through price, not the pathetic packaging laws) to go to the black market, the "data" anyone throws around is mere speculation. Besides, smoking rates will only come down with better education. And rates have been declining for dedcades due to better education. It is just that as ciggies now cost $25 per pack, the incentive to smuggle the Bali cigs in at $1.50 per pack become more and more attractive to buyers and sellers alike.

Prohibition ALWAYS leads to data that is speculative at best and ALWAYS leads to worse outcomes for not only the users of the prohibited substance but the wider community. Tobacco is the first substance to undergo what I call financial prohibition, which is entirely the most sinister form of prohibition. Basically, legal tobacco is prohibited to a growing part of the community ie those without the capacity to pay the extortionate excise. I know all the Lefties think that is great, but people ALWAYS get around prohibition by creating a black market. For those Lefties that actually pay any tax, be prepared in the coming years to pony up the cash to lock up "chop-chop" dealers, along with those that smuggle in cigarettes from the Free World into Australia. You can try to suppress freedom, but in the end freedom wins - it just costs society a LOT of money along the way.

drjones:

This assertion of a black market is straight from the big tobacco playbook.

Unfortunately, like most furphy 'arguments' big tobacco concocts, it is not true. All reliable figure show that the tobacco black market in Australia is negligible in size.

So nice try, but irrelevant. By the way, the survey that Dr Chapman writes about here asks people IF they smoke tobacco. It doesn't ask if they smoke legal cigarettes. And the numbers show a massive decline. Fact. So there is no switch from legal smokes to chop-chop or any other form of illegal tobacco.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 1:53:14pm

"Big" tobacco will play a smaller role. "Small" tobacco (black market chop-chop) will play a bigger role. But when people smuggle the cigs in from free countries - then "Big" tobacco still gets a sale. No matter how much the Left wish to have people living as they would like them to do, it will never happen. Just more energy (and money) will now go into policing tobacco and locking up those who are tempted by the now MASSIVE margins to be made on tobacco smuggling from free countries into Australia.

city_side:

MD:

23 Jul 2014 4:42:47pm

Tobacco isn't like ice or heroin. Those are smuggled as a compact concentrate that leverages a million dollars in dilute or processed metamorphic products, a kilo of tobacco sticks out like the lump in Schapelle Corby's bodyboard bag and returns what, $500? Not enough of an incentive for even a medium-scale criminal endeavour, so the only people trying to do it MASSIVELY will be companies that do it currently. And if they blot their civic reputations, such as they are, they undermine themselves.....plain packages aren't in other countries yet, so they'd be smuggled in and packaged here. Awkward, and with the falling incidence of smoking, a diminishing problem getting smaller. It's addictive, but the physiological return isn't anything like proscribed narcotics, so the only reason there's any widespread interest in tobacco is because it's been sold legally. Crazy, isn't it?

Daniel:

23 Jul 2014 4:53:20pm

Sorry, I missed the bit where the Government (past or present) outlawed tobacco and therefore forced drug addicts (we'll call them what they are shall we?) to buy black market cigarettes. And what does this have to do with Left vs Right partisan politics? Tobacco companies can freely sell their product - they just can't advertise it. That doesn't impose a Nanny state since consumers can still do exactly what they choose - or are you somehow concerned about the welfare of hugely profitable corporations that manufacture legal but life threatening drugs?

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 5:30:24pm

At what point would you call it prohibition? If I say to you anyone can buy beer, but its $1,000 per carton, would you say that is not prohibition? Of course it is. Financial prohibition might not be technical prohibition, but some cannot afford the $25 per day and therefore turn to the black market for more reasonable pricing. I have no problem with people paying for what they consume, but I have a problem with any "sin" taxes. Also, they are coming for unhealthy foods next, well when the ALP/Greens get back in at least.

paul:

24 Jul 2014 7:35:49am

"Besides, smoking rates will only come down with better education" - yup and price signals and plain packages are part of the educational package - if price is important to you then perhaps you should ask big tobacco for a pay increase for writing your sponsored diatribe

capewell:

23 Jul 2014 8:36:02pm

yes old chap of course, an academic study says so. Lets dust off our hands and move Cyril our work here is done! Try just walking around any established market/low end commercial centre and ask for chop chop. You will then find out how negligible the market is.

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 1:36:56pm

I also credit the drop in smoking rates to many thousands of smokers in Australia making the switch to vaping, using products such as personal vapourisers, as an alternative nicotine delivery system, which are orders of magnitude safer than tobacco smoking. There are literally tens of thousands of Australians, that have quit tobacco smoking using PVs, and millions of people world wide that have done the same.

However, people such as the author of this article have chosen to ignore these now ex-smokers, and is supportive of "health" authorities trying to ban these devices in Australia, although there is no scientific data to show that vaping is harmful to either the user or anyone else.

They ignore or try and demonise vapers, (people who use a personal vapouriser), because they are successful in getting people to quit smoking tobacco, and this has meant a drop in sales of pharmaceutical "approved" quit methods, such as dangerous drugs such as Champix, a drug that has been linked to mental illness and suicide, and whom the manufacturers have just had to pay out over $300 million USD in damages recently. This drug is pushed by quit organisations in Australia today.

Then we have the loss in sales of "approved" but abysmally useless pharmaceutical NRT, which have a less than 5% success rate in helping people quit. Pharmaceutical corporations have a lot of money invested in keeping people smoking.

So as much as the author wants to claim a victory, most smokers, and now ex-smokers know what it happening in the real world, and it has very little to do with any campaigns from government against tobacco companies.

Redfish:

23 Jul 2014 4:11:42pm

The argument that vapers are resulting in people giving up smoking in droves is not supported in any way shape or form. Have seen heaps these being used and guess what everyone is still smking the real thing as well.

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 5:19:07pm

There has been a recent report from ASH UK which shows that you are wrong Redfish, vaping is a very successful way to give up smoking altogether. Your argument of dual use, is similar to the one used by the author of this article, but it is not supported by the currently available data.

You should do a little more research before trying to make blanket statements about something you obviously know very little about, going by what you posted.

Redfish:

MD:

23 Jul 2014 4:57:45pm

Why vape at all if you aren't trying to stop smoking? Nicotine is mildly psychotropic, but stops well short of euphoric intoxication, and the only thing it delivers longer term is an itch to be scratched. Rather boring, but I suppose that it's our responsibility as free people to fight for the opportunity to convince the kiddies that they will be infinitely more attractive to one another if they're conspicuously fellating vaporisers and ritualising their use.

Kaz:

23 Jul 2014 3:06:47pm

@Todd

Your argument has no relevance on the recent AIHW survey results, ie a survey of 23,855 people on tobacco use (etc), not tobacco sales. It's irrelevant whether the tobacco was obtained on the black market, retail, or grown in the back yard, with this AIHW survey on tobacco use.

losimpson:

23 Jul 2014 8:13:26am

One of the things I find remarkable is that the The Australian newspaper and the IPA came out in favour of smoking. Speaking to LNP members a couple of years back the overwhelming view was that the then Government was involved in a breach of copyright laws in proposing plain packaging.

It's no wonder we have such difficulty adopting good policy in this country.

Mike of Ulster:

23 Jul 2014 8:41:27am

Yes I remember the tobacco industry going on about that - tobacco corporation's line was, plain packaging would "extinguish" trillions of dollars worth of intellectual property (ie designs and marketing).

rattan:

Tiliqua:

23 Jul 2014 8:44:12am

The liberal party wants to sign the TPP which contains mechanisms for companies to sue Australia if they change laws which lead to a loss of business for them. In other words the tobacco companies could sue Australia over plain packaging.

It does not surprise me taht news corp would put such shameless propaganda in their papers. What does surprise me is that people still pay for that rubbish.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 12:38:36pm

You cannot have it both ways. The anti-choice lobby wailed about banning cigarette advertising for years. That means, by extension, that their branding had commercial value. Now, if a Government extinguishes that branding for their political reasons - then compensation should be payable in my eyes. Fret not, though, the High Court do not like smoking, so to hell with property rights for tobacco companies. Take a famous cola brand that comes in red cans/bottles. When, not if, but when, sugary drinks are treated the same as tobacco, then pictures of inflamatory diabetes symptoms (like amputations etc) replace the famous red branding, then compensation should also be payable. But, by that time, everyone will have been convinced that this sugary drink is a "dangerous product" and therefore normal property rights do not apply. The first step in this Orwellian nightmare began some time ago. Wait for the advertsing bans, they are always the first salvo fired against free choice. I believe we are already at the point that certain food companies will be prevented from advertising on television before 8:30pm. I just hope I am not around to see a cut open brain on my packet of chips...if chips are still legal, of course.

drjones:

23 Jul 2014 1:27:09pm

Whinge whinge whinge. Which tobacco co do you work for Todd?

There is nothing "anti-choice" here. Smoking remains legal! It has just been made expensive and inconvenient. Rightly so because it is deadly to both smokers and those around them, like their children, who are hurt by no fault of theirs. A bit like firearm ownership. So don't try and pull the 'anti-choice' trick. How about instead acknowledging that when people make bad choices their is actually some responsibilty to not inflict those bad choices on others.

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 1:40:40pm

Now they are trying to stop the consumer led choice of quitting smoking by the use of personal vapourisers, so vapers are being criminalised for simply trying to improve their own health, without taking anything from the government, from their own pockets, and by making a personal choice of how they quit.

Dove:

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 2:43:15pm

Tobacco has no benefits but nicotine is increasingly being shown to have benefits in the treatment and/or prevention, of a number of illnesses, including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Depression.

MD:

23 Jul 2014 5:09:50pm

Yeah, that's been said about Alzheimer's because some sufferers were smoking, so tobacco champions imagined it's because they're exhibiting an innate ability to diagnose and self-medicate for it. More likely they'd forgotten that they'd stopped smoking..."Increasingly shown to"...."Including, but not limited to".....just one eensy weensy credible citation for this enthusiasm?

stalga:

23 Jul 2014 8:50:05am

The IPA accepts money from tobacco companies so it is not surprising they will do their bidding. Phillip Morris and British American Tobacco are listed as current or previous donors. It is hard not to surmise that the LNP are also complicit.

I finally stopped smoking 6 weeks ago, among the motivating factors on my written list is a reminder that I hate tobacco companies. Lastly, federal funding for the program to encourage indigenous people to quit was withdrawn in the budget. Gotta love this government.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 12:44:00pm

That is because both Phillip Morris and the IPA agree with freedom of choice. Ah, you mention indigenous smoking. Gillard put up excise at a faster rate than ever before (most rises are still yet to come). Now, indigenous smoking rates are higher than the wider community. Hey, indigenous Australians who smoke a pack aday can easily afford $25 per pack, can't they? Because financial means have nothing to do with many devastating social and health issues, do they? Yep...gotta love the Gillard Government.

drjones:

23 Jul 2014 1:39:33pm

Ah, so perhaps you are from Phillip Morris, Todd? That would explain your exemplerary grasp of all the tired old pro-big tobacco arguments.

Again I tell you: there is nothing 'anti-choice' in how tobacco is sold to Australians. It's legal. It's available. You can go to any of tens of thousands of shops at all hours of day and night and purchase it!

Mark James:

Er, no they don't, Todd. Both opposed the free-choice of the democratically elected goverenment of Australia to implement plain-packaging laws, for instance.

In addition, Philip Morris have systematically opposed freedom of choice by continuing to market and sell highly addictive products.

Maybe, in your thesis on absolute freedom, you could estimate how addiction interacts and impinges on free choice? Or, how the notion of the "rational actor" may or may not be consistent with the fact of so many smokers want to quit but haven't been able to? (Did you know, for instance, that people can hate themselves for failing to quit but that the subequent lowered self-esteem feeds the habit? Catch 22, eh?)

Mark James:

losimpson, it's not so 'remarkable' when you consider Murdoch, Philip Morris and the IPA are virtually 'family'.

The links between Murdoch, the IPA and Philip Morris go back a long way.

Murdoch has sat on the boards of both Philip Morris and the IPA, and internal Phillip Morris discussion papers from 1985 (while noting that in "the world today public opinion is formed, to a significant extent, by the news media") named Murdoch as one of the "media proprietors . . . sympathetic to our position."

The Australian, of course, often a loudhailer for its master's voice, has waged significant campaigns on behalf of the tobacco industry, notably in April 2011 and August 2013 - with one piece claiming plain-packaging legislation amounted to the "same flawed economic and moral arguments that underpinned Nazi Germany's policies to stamp out smoking."

ozzie_traveller:

23 Jul 2014 9:45:50am

The Australian as a Murdoch paper is against any gov't intervention in any marketplace - that's why they are anti these tobacco issues. They seem to think that 'leave everything to the marketplace to sort out' over-rides any other considerations like safety etc

JohnnoH:

23 Jul 2014 11:00:11am

Abbott will get a spike in the polls after the shooting down of MH17, but it will evaporate when people refocus on domestist issues such as the budget. certain LNP people backing the tobacco companies will accelerate the evaporation and the Australian will simply meets its demise, unless it starts being objective which won't happen.

stalga:

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 12:26:24pm

The IPA are not in favour of smoking - they are in favour of freedom of choice. Therefore, they are of the opinion, as am I, that Big Government has no place interfering in a commercial relationship between consenting adults, that is, the tobacco consumer and the tobacco supplier. For example, I am not in favour of Das Kapital, but respect one's right to choose to read such tripe and therefore would never even entertain putting on some kind of "damaging information excise." I would passionately oppose any such tax, even though I think the World would be better off without Das Kapital. I see it as a choice for the reader and the publisher. If people do choose to read Marx, that is their choice and therefore no more or less valid than my choice to read Adam Smith.

That is the difference with the IPA and what makes it so strong. It stands by it's principles, not just when it suits them, but across the board. The Left tends to want to ban everything they do not think is good for people - which although may come from an admirable "do-gooder" attitude, is fraught with problems that attach to all prohibition, both direct and financial. When Labor and the Greens get back in, we can look forward to sugar, salt and fat taxes (their Preventative Health Task Force recommended it, but thankfully that was disbanded by the Abbott Government). And going by the rationale used by the anti-choice lobby against tobacco, of course they should be implemented. That is, they are bad for your health in excess, therefore a tax should be applied to them for your own good. I reject that thinking, but obviously both the IPA and I are in the majority. The only reason most people today agree with tobacco excise increases is the vast majority no longer smoke. That just shows the fickleness of the principles of prohibitionists.

Grace:

23 Jul 2014 1:27:34pm

Todd,

The problem with your argument is that tobacco consumption is not merely a commercial relationship between consumers and suppliers of tobacco, but an issue which has significant impact on society as a whole. Smokers have myriad health issues whose treatment is subsidised by the taxes of non-smokers, cigarette butts contribute enormously to the littering of our streets, and studies for many years have found links between second-hand smoke inhalation and lung cancer.

For the non-smokers in our population, who constitute a very large majority, smoking is a deplorable habit which impacts negatively upon them. If, as your comment suggests, you have a live and let live attitude when it comes to personal behaviour (as in your example of choice of reading material), I would have thought that you would oppose smoking as it infringes upon the rights of the majority to breathe unsullied air.

If all smokers take to smoking only in the privacy of their own homes, conscientiously disposing of the butts which they generate, and single-handedly paying all of the medical bills which eventuate because of their choice, I would be much more supportive of freedom of choice and freedom of consumption for smokers. Until that day arrives, I will continue to applaud the work of the Rudd and Gillard governments in tackling this social issue with laws that effectively smoking in Australia.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 4:00:56pm

You are really arguing for a user pays health system. Look, we will all die. Economically speaking, it is optimal for society that we die of a massive heart attack the day after we retire. Therefore, no treatment costs. The biggest impost on health resources moving forward is actually due to the increased life expectancy we now enjoy. Someone who lives until they are 100 with say Dementia costs far more than someone with emphysema or a fatal heart attack/stroke. Its about treatment options and the costs associated with such options. Also, many recalcitrant smokers are refused a second round of treatment, just so you know.

drjones:

23 Jul 2014 1:45:04pm

"Big Government has no place interfering in a commercial relationship between consenting adults, that is, the tobacco consumer and the tobacco supplier."

Again more lies. A significant proportion of the relationship is not between 'consenting adults', it is between manipulative drug dealers selling to children, or manipulative drug dealers selling to addicted victims. It's not a fair fight, so the community (an more adult and balanced way to describe the government in a democracy than the tired cliche "Big Government" - must be Bad because it coms with Scary Capitalisation!!) re-balances the transaction.

And again I point out- it's got nothing to do with choice. You can still smoke legally in this country.

smarteye:

23 Jul 2014 1:40:02pm

Good point. I know the government have other things on their mind at the moment but I wonder if Minister Dutton has had much to say on this subject? (Or is Big Tobacco another friend of the LNP like the coal industry)

Now I think of it, that great legal mind of our time, George Brandis, is very quiet as well...

ken fowler:

23 Jul 2014 8:19:57am

Well I can confirm at least two people no longer support the immoral tobacco industry, my partner who gave up 7 weeks ago & myself who gave up two years ago! Was it plain packaging? Partly for myself because I saw what a disgusting industry Big tobacco really is during its fight with the Gillard government over this policy & the lies they were prepared to spread. Reminded me of the asbestos industry - criminals!

DavidR:

rudski:

"the elephant-in-the-room explanatory variable was the implementation of plain packaging in December 2012."

Sorry Simon but this statement is wrong because it excludes the others factors involved such as market price points. With certain brands the price point has exceeded market expectations.

Put simply the annual increase in CPI has reached a level where in the eyes of the smoker that particular brand of cigarettes is not worth it.

Micro-economic experience will tell you the fact that consumers get accustomed to paying for a certain price for a certain product. If the price point reaches a level that the consumer believes is unreasonable you will see a dramatic decrease in sales.

Plain packaging has played a role in the reduction of sales but since 2009 the steady increased in the price has had more of an impact. Give it a few more years and you will see the price of cigarettes reach a level where even the most dedicated of smokers will think twice.

Tiliqua:

23 Jul 2014 8:54:17am

If it is only increasing by CPI how is that possible. Wouldn't prices need to increase by faster than CPI to bake them increasingly less affordable, as wages should also be increasing at roughly the rate of CPI.

Dan:

23 Jul 2014 9:21:09am

Tiliqua, its not increasing at the rate of CPI. Govt taxes are increasing by 25% every six months. Eventually, there is going to be a reduction in numbers because when it comes down to food or smokes, most people are going to pick food. The pro and anti smoking lobbies can argue about it all they like, but its the cost that is driving people to quit.

As a liberal I find the whole thing concerning. Sure it might not worry you if you don't smoke, but what about when they need revenue again and they start taxing alcohol even more harshly. What about when they start taxing fast food? What about when they start taxing chocolate and soft drinks?

Only after the last bowl of bran has been consumed (with a healthy glass of water) will some people realise that freedom includes bad choices sometimes.

EM Laidly:

Vince:

"As a liberal I find the whole thing concerning. Sure it might not worry you if you don't smoke, but what about when they need revenue again and they start taxing alcohol ... (etc)"

Use your common sense and ignore your politics. Smoking is a stone-cold killer. Lung cancer, for example, is the biggest cancer killer, accounting for about 20% of cancer deaths in Australia. 84% of lung cancers are attributable to smoking. Lung cancer is by far the most preventable of cancers. It costs our society billions of dollars a year to treat. What is worst, most new smokers are kids. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin. It is truly shocking, and if you took the time to inform yourself of the facts, you would understand this. First step: stop reading The Australian and start doing your own research. You'll quickly find they are full of it on most issues.

JohnnoH:

23 Jul 2014 11:05:35am

Well put Vince and I agree wholeheartedly, but there are other diseases attributed to smoking that are just as deadly as lung cancer, such as emphysema, stokes, other blood disorder, mouth and throat cancers just to name a few.

Dan:

23 Jul 2014 1:18:16pm

Vince, I have never read the Australian and I'm not getting my views from there. Don't mistake liberal for Liberal Party (they are very different views)

My point is that you are talking about something that people are doing to themselves. If they start impacting on others then sure, take action (e.g. bans on public smoking, drink driving etc). But if its just a case of you knowing better than the people making those choices, then its a very slippery slope. You might not like it, but people making dumb choices is what freedom looks like.

Vince:

23 Jul 2014 2:58:48pm

Sorry, my mistake. I take your point re freewill, but this is obviously far beyond that. Smoking impacts society as a whole via healthcare. It also impacts physically on others via secondary smoke. But, perhaps the most important thing to remember is that most people who start smoking are not fully aware of the eventual consequences. Most people who start smoking are young, even kids. That is the shame of it all.

Vince:

23 Jul 2014 5:38:58pm

I'm talking about kids, garybenno, they are not fully aware of the consequences in the way you or I might be (assuming you are an adult).

You know, we all carp on about "choice" being the primary issue here, which is ironic, because the very hallmark of addiction is the loss of choice. It's an industry that thrives on addiction yet argues that we all should be entitled to choose.

Dan:

23 Jul 2014 4:27:09pm

Alex - I said I am a liberal not a supporter of the Liberal party. I did clarify that in both my posts. The philosophy that I'm talking about essentially states that everyone can do whatever they want, as long as there is no harm to anyone else. It is sometimes used in the form "liberal democracy" and up until about 40 years ago, used to at least be aspired to by most people in Western cultures....Now we don't even know what it means, which is why I worry about us sliding down a slippery slope to a world where our betters tell us all what is good for us. You can see it in Ann's post - tax chocolate but not fair trade chocolate. Why should her morals be mine?

In terms of yours and Vince's points - yes smokers should pay the costs of what they are doing (including health costs), but I am yet to be convinced that they are not already doing that through taxes. Most of the analysis I have seen is obviously biased one way or the other (e.g. using dead smokers lost earnings as a cost to society, or minimising the health costs of smokers by arguing that the diseases aren't linked). That is a shame, because they should pay those costs and no more.

Ann:

23 Jul 2014 1:35:43pm

I'm a chocolate addict and if the government started taxing chocolate I would accept it. Especially if they gave preferential tax treatment to those manufacturers that could prove their cocoa had not come from slave labour conditions.

I'll pay extra for my fix to compensate for the problems it causes, and if it gets too expensive I'll bow out and suffer in silence. It's only chocolate.

rudski:

A market price point has nothing to do with salary and everything to do with consumer perception.

When the individual consumer reaches his or her price point they generally look to other things often it's substitution.

Like I said before if you knowingly do or don't do it all of us as consumers have some form of a preconceived idea of what an item should cost or more accurately put, what you're prepared to pay for that item.

Bruc3:

rudski:

23 Jul 2014 9:50:03am

Yes I did Bruce.

What I am saying is between 2010 and 2013 the record falls you see are the exact time when the market price point was reached nothing else.

Attributing other factors without first acknowledging this major contributor is rather pointless - the elephant in the room was and is market price points not plain packaging or other anti-smoking strategies.

Ann:

23 Jul 2014 1:38:12pm

But you neglect to take into account that people's equation of a product's value will include its visual appeal, brand notoriety and self-identification. Plain packaging reduces all of this and so it lowers the cigarette's "value". Perhaps to a point where the new price increase overtook the intrinsic value in many consumers minds.

schneids:

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 1:49:37pm

That's not how addiction works. The black market will flourish. It does for illicit drugs - so it definitely will with a substance that was entirely illegal but is undergoing financial prohibition. Why don't people operate illegal distilleries - because they can get a bottle of cheap spirits for around $20. If that was $100, then, surprise, surpise, illegal disitlleries would begin to pop up. When will we ever learn that prohibiton DOES NOT WORK. The official tobacco figures are falling - what of the unofficial stats? I would say they are rising as the price becomes more prohibitive for those on modest incomes.

drjones:

There - is - NO - prohibition. Tobacco is legally available! Adults have freedom of choice to go into tens of thousands of supermarkets, corner store petrol stations, bottlos etc to buy tobacco!!

Secondly there - is - NO - credible evidence of a significant tobacco black market in Australia. And there is ZERO indication that smokers are quitting legal tobacco to smoke illegal tobacco. It is NOT happening! The only people who seem to think this imaginary problem is real are the ..... surprise, surprise- tobacco companies!

RobRed:

Simon Chapman:

23 Jul 2014 7:48:51pm

Todd, if you take the trouble to look at the data inside the link to the report I provided, there are data on how many smokers purchased "unbranded" tobacco too (ie illicit chop chop) And guess what? It was less than 4% and it had gone DOWN from the previous survey. So much for Big Tobacco's claims about 16% of all tobacco sold being illicit.

DeepFritz:

23 Jul 2014 8:44:27am

But it won't work work, so why do it...

The one part that I really loved during the campaign was the "Milk Bar Owners" who will be put out of business by this new legislation. It was the worst example of astro-turfing that I have ever seen. Besides, if your business requires peddling death to survive, then your business deserves to fail.

paul:

23 Jul 2014 9:54:08am

how about big retail! woollies and coles still sell this rubbish - journalists should start asking why? - big tobacco must have large shareholdings in these companies (no doubt under disguised shareholder names to fool the idiot public)

DeepFritz:

23 Jul 2014 2:20:30pm

Big retail never made a stink about it...

The campaign was supposedly one made by milk bar owners claiming that it would force them to shut. It was a campaign that was bank rolled by big tobacco. If the only way a corner milk bar can operate is by selling cigarettes, then that business can close for all I care. Most owners would be canny enough to sell other items, turn their business into a cafe/milkbar and diversify.

The Alliance of Australian Retailers was the front name given to them... It was the most unbelievable astro-turf campaign ever!

Really thanks must be given to Nicola Roxon for getting this campaign through.

Common sense:

There was a time when the tobacco industry represented the most cynical and audacious PR practices around.

But these days they've just turned into a parody of themselves. And it's so easy to spot.

Let's be honest. The industry's had 60 years to diversify out of it. It's not like the rug's been pulled out from under them. If they're still in it after all this time - and continue to misread the fact that companies just won't exist these days if they don't have any sense of "public good" in any thing they produce, then they deserve all the contempt they get.

confused:

23 Jul 2014 8:47:49am

Simon, you've pointed out the very obvious that the Australian / News Ltd are in the pockets of big tobacco - perhaps you can investigate why they are allowed to get away with this biased reporting - I would argue the bias is so obvious that it should be regarded as blatant advertising and apparently you are not allowed to advertise tobacco??

Dave:

23 Jul 2014 11:52:06am

"I would argue the bias is so obvious that it should be regarded as blatant advertising"

The technical get-out-of-jail-free card is that tobacco, as well as being a product in the marketplace, is also a public policy issue. It is the subject of legislation, policies, taxes and academic study in its own right. Discussion of these matters must be free.

Breakfast in Bed:

Who cares what Big Tobacco claims, we are educated enough to know that they are likely to protest and manipulate information to their advantage.

What we should care about is if the collective measures to reduce smoking rates have worked.

I do take issue with the pricing of cigarettes however, as I am aware that people highly addicted who can least afford to smoke will continue regardless and sacrifice other essential items like food, rent, bills etc., in order to afford smoking. If the government is genuinely interested in the health and welfare of these people as opposed to their own coffers it would be providing for these people more adequately

Burgos:

23 Jul 2014 9:25:22am

Have you not seen the ad campaigns to go see your doctor for help in quitting smoking (bulk billing for those with less still alive despite Tony's best efforts) - plus Medicare and the state run hospitals are still there to try and cure smoking related diseases. No one has been abandoned. At some point though every addict has to find a glimmer of wanting to actually change for any support to be successful.

malb:

Just Sayin':

If the addicted smokers are stupid enough to starve themselves to death all for the sake of a smoke who are we to stand in their way.

Likewise if smokers think that having a roof over their head is less important than the next puff, who are we to stand in their way of homelessness.

If smokers wish to eat uncooked cold food because their addiction means that they can't pay for electricity or gas, who are we to stand in their way.

The message is simple for anyone smoking or thinking of taking it up, you will pay, pay, pay all the way, way, way, so you had better have plenty of money to do so. As the richer you are the more healthy a lifestyle you will probably live, the increasing cost of smoking is targetted mainly at those who's income doesn't give them much choice but to give up smoking if they wish to have food in their belly, a roof over their head & clothes on their back.

garybenno:

23 Jul 2014 9:43:27am

I have to agree with your comment that it doesn't matter what the cause is for a reduction in tobacco smoking, anything that rids us of this disgusting product is a good thing. I can't agree with your concerns about price hikes, anyone can kick the habit if they really want to, some people are so dumb that they smoke because it is their right to choose. To choose tobacco over food and other essentials just proves how dumb and selfish they are. For the record I am over 60 and have never willingly smoked, ever, I say willingly because due to smokers selfish self indulgent use of tobacco I was forced to smoke secondhand filth for many years back before legislation was introduced to stop non smokers being poluted. The tobacco industry have for decades lied and cheated and fought each and every measure that sought to protect people from their stinking product. I say tax them till they bleed, the income from the tax is way less than the health cost that smoking brings.

jammer470:

23 Jul 2014 2:09:16pm

"some people are so dumb that they smoke because it is their right to choose"That is a bit harsh as nicotine is an addictive drug, you become addicted which alters your rational choice making decisions. Abusing the addicted is not helping. Big tobacco is to blame not the addict.

garybenno:

23 Jul 2014 3:40:30pm

My comments may seem harsh but they are fact. Sure people who started smoking 20 years back have got a struggle on their hands to quit but anybody choosing to smoke in the past decade or so are just dumb or stupid. Just ask anybody why they started and the reasons are just dumb, the addictive reason for smoking comes sometime after the habit is taken on so it goes to my comments re dumb, stupid and selfish. A full blown smoking habit is more costly than paying off a new medium size car, pretty simple really choose to smoke or have a new car every 4 years or so it is that simple.

JaneS:

Michael:

23 Jul 2014 8:51:27am

I don't believe it has made much difference, might have made a little but I don't believe a big success. I hate smoking, never have smoked, hate the smell it leaves on your clothes, I am a passionate anti smoker as my mother smoked. But I believe smokers have changed their habits. My father in law smokes, is a chain smoker and since plain packaging smokes chop chop. All I know is he buys it at Flemington Markets and last week he spent $400. I haven't asked too many questions and he wouldn't tell me too much because if I knew whom he was purchasing from I would find out who I make a complaint to and complain. From what my father in law tells me it is a huge black market and many are now purchasing chop chop. My mother in-law used to smoke and stopped 12 months ago emphysema makes one think or some think about their stupid decisions. If only they would stop supermarkets, petrol stations and similar selling them that would make a difference, make them inconvenient to buy and make more areas smoke free.

AJS:

23 Jul 2014 11:27:57am

With the decriminalisation of marijuana - it is permissible for people to grow enough plants at home for their personal use.Do the same for tobacco - it's not illegal to smoke but illegal to grow at home.Change the laws so that a smoker can grow enough tobacco at home for his or her personal use - no profits for big tobacco and a further nail in their coffin.

city_side:

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 3:42:25pm

Michael, can you let drjones know that there is a black market that grows with every increase in excise. He claims above that there ismo such black market. Of course not much is said about it, as the supplier could go to gaol. As I said, data is now meaningless as to smoking rates. But he may accuse you of working for a tobacco company.

Vince:

GJA:

23 Jul 2014 8:54:51am

This is an excellent example of why we have governmental regulations. All those self-styled 'libertarians' moaning about rules, red tape, and taxes are just rapacious capitalists intent on making as much money as they can from the emiseration of others before we get wise to them and cut them off. Businesses has no interest in the well-being of their customers, and Liberal governments are only interested in the well-being of business. "Big government" isn't the problem. Greed is.

rattan:

23 Jul 2014 10:21:40am

real red tape = rules split across acts, or duplication

fake red tape that is always what they con us into letting them cut = rules put in long enough ago we forgot what behaviour they were trying to stop, so will foolisly let be cut so we can suffer a repeat in history

JohnnoH:

carbon-based lifeform:

23 Jul 2014 12:13:42pm

Agree. Look at the US where republican Tea-party fools who are governors of the state removed red tape and be open for business: remember the explosions and poisonous drinking waters?That is the problem with this government telling everyone that Australia is open for business.

mmc:

You people make me sick. Where do you get off telling me what I can and cannot do. I smoke, I enjoy it, I don't do it around others, so why should I be forced into stoppping. It's my decision!!!!

How would you feel if the government stopped you from drinking, or owning a pet, or driving a car or the hundreds of numerious past times that some people enjoy but others feel is dangerous and places an undue strain on the nation.

Get a grip people let others enjoy themselves. If you don't like it then don't be around those that do.

Toc:

23 Jul 2014 9:14:10am

I have absolutely no problems with you smoking. Just don't do it around me.And definitely don't expect me to allow the people who conned you into thinking it was a good idea, also con my children, grandchildren or anyone else's.

rattan:

Burgos:

23 Jul 2014 9:31:09am

Happy for you to keep on smoking - no one is stopping you. Plain packaging, taxes and other dissuaders are there to influence you but you don't have to take heed. You can also keep on using the government funded health services too to deal with any smoking related ills that arise. Our interest in your health continues but you remain free to make your choices. Have a great day.

rattan:

paul:

23 Jul 2014 2:31:26pm

brilliant..much better!!..but unfortunately it will be too late to use - no doubt the scumbag tobacco employees (posing as human beings and posting comments on this story) have already rushed off to the trademark office and registered the slogan so no one can use it

Just Sayin':

23 Jul 2014 9:51:17am

MMC, you haven't been barred from smoking at all, just it costs at lot more to do so & others who don't smoke think that you shouldn't smoke around others in public places.

Like you said you don't smoke around others, so what is your problem? Just the stench of a smoker walking past me or standing in line waiting for service makes me wanna puke, so please continue to be a social leper & stay away from the rest of us.

I find it mildy amusing that when tobacco company executives are interviewed, one of the questions that is always asked is do you consume your company's product. The reply these days is 'of course not, it's harmful to my health'.

steven:

23 Jul 2014 9:57:37am

There are laws that prevent you drinking in certain places, when you can drink or even when you can buy alcohol. Go to mine sites and the amount and type you can drink or own is restricted. There are even punitive government charges associated with it to discourage consumption.

Same with pets, there are rules restricting the numbers, breeds and types of pets you can own, where you can have them and you can be banned from ever having a pet. You want to have a pet, fine but don?t expect to own a pet that is an established dangerous breed and allow it to roam uncontrolled or to bark continuously.

Interestingly your arguments could also be applied to gun control, where does the government get off telling you what you can and can?t do. We live in a society that has laws to enable us to live cooperately together; this is part of the social contract. You want to go and sit in a small room and smoke yourself to death, fine, ignore the impact on your family but don?t expect me to have to put up with the smell or smoke and most importantly, don?t expect me to subsidise your medical care when what you do creates the need. (Yes I know other human activities or lack of it also create medical demand but smoking is the only activity in which the predicted outcome is death and has no mitigating benefits)

losimpson:

Mark James:

23 Jul 2014 10:15:52am

mmc, nobody is stopping you from smoking. You are free to smoke.

However, given we know what smoking does, we also have a responsibility to ensure that tobacco companies aren't as free as they would like to be to dig their dirty claws into our children in order to continue to profit from their addictive and poisonous products.

schneids:

23 Jul 2014 10:19:13am

No, we don't make you sick, it's your smoking that's making you sick. But no one's stopping you from doing that. If you want to keep up with a habit that will cost you up to half a million dollars in your lifetime while making you stink, giving you yellow teeth, bad breath, bad skin, lung cancer, heart disease, while making you end your life with one or two less limbs than you started with and impotent to boot, well you go right ahead and do that. It's your choice.

JohnnoH:

Nina:

23 Jul 2014 11:18:07am

What makes me sick is seeing someone misrepresent an issue (plain packaging somehow becomes banning tobacco), then argue the misrepresented issue with moral outrage. It is nauseating to think there are people who think this tactic works.

malb:

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 4:51:32pm

Agreed, mmc.

You, like any smoker in Australia, pay more tax than non-smoking idiots that risk their lives in all manner of ways. Smoking is the only thing that is bad for us that is taxed at a ridiculous rate. You know it ain't great for you, but you choose to do it as you enjoy it. I have no problem with your choice. And you should not be paying so much tax, my friend.

Just ignore all the Lefty knockers that happily take your hard earned while having such contempt for your free will. Deep down, they know such tax rates are unconscionable and are about as concerned for your health as a heroin dealer is concerned with the health of his/her customers. I am only driving this Ferrari because I care.

DiogenesNT:

23 Jul 2014 6:58:50pm

Hi Todd, your statement 'You, like any smoker in Australia, pay more tax than non-smoking idiots that risk their lives in all manner of ways has no basis in fact as you do not know what other risks mmc does and assumes that only non-smoking idiots are the ones who risk their lives in rester numbers. This is nonsense, bit like the most of your arguments on this site. Why is it only 'lefty knockers' that are taking people's hard earned cash when you have no facts to back up this statement. It is just propaganda rubbish to support your fallacious arguments. Seriously, think a bit harder before penning these gems as your posts give you zero credibility.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 9:15:12pm

I qualify that with, ceteris paribus. That is, a non-smoker with the exact same risky behaviour profile, would pay less tax, no matter that they are both pearl divers or librarians. I object to your slur of propaganda, rather it is my genuine view. I stand by my assertion that smoking, and to a far lesser extent, alcohol consumption, are the only risky behaviours that are taxed on that basis. I believe it is unfair. You do not. I don't accuse do-gooder, nanny state types of peddling propaganda. Indeed, they just seek to control the behaviour of which they do not approve. A valid viewpoint, but not one that I share. I know you Lefties do not like dissenting opinions, but they do exist outside of the Leftist hive-mind set.

Breach of peace:

23 Jul 2014 8:57:03am

It is a silly and filthy habit that pollutes peoples lungs and is polluting the world with their smoke and poison in the air. It pollutes other peoples lungs as well that are nearby from the passing smoke of tobacco and the other 10,000 chemicals that are put in cigarettes. People get addicted in so many ways as their will power is not strong enough to quit unless you keep raising the bar in taxes so they can't afford it. They can't afford it in the long run as $billions of dollars are wasted in health issues, disease and death results and the PR campaigns to stop people smoking.There should be tougher legislation for parents who allow their underage children to smoke. The tobacco companies go offshore to the Asian countries where there is slack legislation so they don't have a conscience they just want the profit no matter what it takes.

Lawrence of Bavaria:

23 Jul 2014 1:12:19pm

Public transport in all Australian capitals should be free. Add up all the subsidies for public transport, the cost for ticket machines, integrated ticketing and its servicing, for ticket inspectors, etc. and compare that figure to what it actually costs to run public transport in this country and you'll end up with a figure that should be carried by the respective States. Make inner cities car free, charge congestion tolls, increase general road tolls and we will have a big shift towards public transport. (And a lot more cyclists). Expand the rail network, build underground car parks at big suburban railway stations and we will have less traffic and more productivity because thousands of commuters won't be stuck in bumper-to-bumper peak hour-traffic for hours. All the money saved to make roads bigger and build new ones should go into public transport and more bus services for rural areas. A portion of the existing fuel excise should help fund all this. Our cities could absorb more population growth and become more liveable. But as long as our decision makers have designated drivers to get them around we won't get anywhere.

ScottBE:

23 Jul 2014 5:18:33pm

Have you ever noticed young people drinking Breach? Have you seen teenagers gambling? Do you know that these problem behaviours are worsening?

Young people are not deterred by absurd images of rotten teeth and legs being cut off because they recognise that this is mere propaganda. They are at an age when taking huge risks are the norm and they are developmentally at a period when they must challenged authority and parents rules. Of course they will try anything if their peers think its good.

they're kids. They do not yet respond well to reason if it opposes what they want to do. Moreover they recognise utter exaggeration when they see it. How many smokers have you seen with one leg? or rotten teeth? If the authorities mouth absurdities they will ignore the authorities.

giant corona :

23 Jul 2014 8:58:24am

In the U.S the tobacco companies are railing against the e cigarette and personal vaporisers market (U.S spelling). They are throwing all their lobbying and dollar power behind it as it has cut into their profits and predictions are it will grow exponentially. The health aspect of e cigarettes seems to focus on the liquid nicotine component. The value for money and less toxic chemicals, as opposed to analog cigarettes has lured people away from big tobacco companies. I wonder at the current debate in Australia, and whether it will be available on the market. Lobbying huh.

din:

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 1:50:40pm

Wrong, big tobacco have only recently bought into the vape market, but their products are the least popular. The vape market is owned by a majority of small to medium businesses with no links at all to big tobacco.

Vapers themselves do not support big tobacco involvement in the industry, and sales of big tobacco vape products are in decline in countries that sell these items. No BT vape products are available in Australia at all.

Bulldust:

23 Jul 2014 11:07:08am

Not sure about the debate, but in Perth an e cigarette retailer is fighting substantial WA Department of Health fines for selling them. It is easy to see how one might suspect that the hand of Big tobacco is behind the push. He was found guilty on an appeal by DoH based on the exceptionally silly legislation that bans selling of products that aren't ciggies but look like them.

I can understand how this is to discourage say chocolate resembling ciggies (I remember them as a kid overseas), but for something that is a coffin nail replacement ... well, you'd think a little common sense would prevail, especially if it turns out that the e variety is less harmful to one's health.

ScottBE:

23 Jul 2014 5:25:40pm

GC there is another very important reason why e-cigs are such a great concern. Liquid nicotine is banned for a very good reason that the distillment is highly toxic and at risk of killing instantly if someone decides to try taking it via other means/routes.

Moreover there is the question of what engineered chemical (synthetic) is being used as a nicotine substitute in those brands which do not use nicotine. The synthetic chemicals approximate the effect of nicotine but the effects are untested and long term effects are unknown. These chemicals may be worse than nicotine - we don't know. Yet they are on sale, over the counter, with no restrictions applicable to tobacco.

Also they do nothing to reduce smoking rates. My relation who uses e-cigs continues to smoke. He doesn't understand the dangers of synthetic chemicals. This is a dangerous risk.

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 6:22:38pm

E-cigs do not use highly concentrated liquid nicotine, they use the same nicotine, in highly diluted doses that is used in all pharmaceutical NRT products. Please stop spreading this misinformation. The liquid does not contain any "nicotine substitute, it contains nicotine in a dilute form.

The risks are minimal when the liquid is used as it is intended to be used in personal vapourisers.

Very recently the use of pharmaceutical grade nicotine has been approved for long term use in pharmaceutical NRT products. As there was no evidence of long term harm, or health issues.

I agree that there needs to be some regulation of the liquid used in personal vapourisers, but regulation needs to be based on the actual risks. When used as intended, the risk profile of the nicotine liquid used in pvs is very similar to the risk profile of caffeine used in coffee, tea or energy drinks.

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 6:50:59pm

There are literally millions of smokers who have quit completely using personal vapourisers, a recent survey by Cardiologist Dr Farsalinos, of 19,000 vapers, showed that greater than 80% had completely quit smoking, and of those that didn't quit completely, they cut down, on average, from 20 cigarettes a day, to just 4.

I tend to believe this more than your anecdotal evidence based on one person who is your relative.

There are thousands of ex-smokers in Australia who have done the same, quit smoking with the use of personal vapourisers, I'm just one of many.

Most responsible vapouriser vendors also do not sell either vaping hardware or liquid to children under 18, and you cannot legally buy nicotine eliquid in Australia, over or under any counter, as it is prohibited to do so. However, anyone can go into woolies or coles and buy pharmaceutical products containing nicotine, (the same nicotine used in pvs), as sale of these items is not restricted to adults only.

Please do not spread misinformation about something you obviously know nothing about.

Simon Chapman:

23 Jul 2014 8:01:20pm

Nunga -- Farsalinos' study is worthless. It was an on-line self-completion study, highly publicised in vaping chat rooms populated by non-representative hard-core vapers. Makes as much sense to use such a method to declare 81% a true cessation rate as it would to base a study on wine use on wine appteciation society members. The recent population study in England of smokers who'd made a quit attempt in the past 12 months found just 20% had quit, compared to 15.4% who'd quit cold turkey. A little but higher but nothing like the hype. And it was what we call "point prevalence" data, not longitudinal, so does not report relapse rates in say 12 months. Also, cutting down (not quitting) confers no significant harm reduction, sorry. I know the data back to front.

Dean R Frenkel:

23 Jul 2014 9:03:03am

In truth Big Tobacco had a free ride for a very long time. It had the entire twentieth century to establish a highly addictive and deadly product legally. Given both these aspects it is amazing that it remains legal; less addictive and deadly drugs are illegal. And because it was so profitable Big Tobacco was able to virtually invent the whole industry of clever marketing. So now tobacco and the companies which profit from it are being seen for what it is. What's the other highly addictive and destructive drug still being given a free ride? Alcohol. Next is alcohol's turn. Bring it on. NB: It is amazing that ASADA doesn't consider alcohol to be illicit.

Ann:

23 Jul 2014 1:45:49pm

It's especially interesting that there's no social distinction or laws in place to dictate acceptable % of alcohol in drinks. Even just limiting the % to a low-ball number and requiring all manufacturers to comply, would go a ways to reducing the social harm of alcohol. There's only so much liquid a human body can intake.

terence:

23 Jul 2014 3:06:21pm

In fact the % of alcohol in spirits in Australia has been gradually reduced over quite a few years.It is no coincidence that nearly all spirits available have an identical alcohol % , even though this does not occur naturally.

city_side:

23 Jul 2014 1:51:35pm

Considering alcohol is the worlds biggest killer it most certainly will be next with some health warnings at least to start with. I like to drink (more than is healthy) but I'll be happy about any type of regulation that helps cut down abuse.

ScottBE:

23 Jul 2014 6:24:46pm

Dean did you know that the Ottoman "government" in the 16th century banned tobacco under penalty of death? After around 60 years and three executions, they withdrew the ban as pointless and ineffective.

Banning a drug or making it illegal doesn't serve as a deterrent. It only makes the drug a market for those who flout the law for profit. Look at what is happening with cannabis. It has been illegal for over 50 years and yet it continues to thrive. Heroin has continued to be used openly around the nation and the illegal drug market continues to grow despite so many busts.

I agree much more needs to be done on alcohol. Add gambling to this and legalise/regulate the present illicit drugs and we can then reduce use through education and reasoning. This is a mature and responsible management strategies that is gaining in favour around the world.

Jebus Smith:

23 Jul 2014 9:03:45am

I gave up cigarettes in the period after plain packaging. Not because of plain packaging of course, but because I took up vaping, a tobacco harm reduction strategy Chapman perversely wants to restrict. I have since stopped vaping and remain cigarette free. Ftr,a distrust of people talking nonsense about smoking probably deferred my quitting cigarettes for years. The same is probably true for millions of other smokers. In other words Simon, you are part of the problem. If you MUST venture into this territory at least make an attempt to understand the psychology of smokers. I doubt however that you can muster the empathy, given the almost religious judgmentalism you display in spades.

nunga:

Well said, I also quit smoking by switching to the orders of magnitude safer product, a personal vapouriser.

Tens of thousands of Australians are doing the same, despite the scare campaign by Chapman and his fellow ANTZ, who are trying to criminalise people that quit smoking.

Millions of people world wide have quit smoking using personal vapourisers, but our "health" authorities are either too stupid, or too blinded by their "quit in the way we tell you to, or die" ideology, that they will be responsible for many many deaths.

JaneS:

23 Jul 2014 2:51:02pm

"I also quit smoking by switching to the orders of magnitude safer product, a personal vapouriser."An online search suggests that these products may not be 'orders of magnitude safer' than tobacco although I hope such a product is available eventually.

JaneS:

23 Jul 2014 8:11:53pm

Then perhaps you can provide links to some of these "...reputable evidence based sources..." so others can assess the evidence for themselves. Otherwise, it sounds a bit like you look for sources which agree with your viewpoint & ignore anything to the contrary. Being cynical, I'd be surprised if some of the supporting sources aren't shills for the vapouriser industry.

ScottBE:

23 Jul 2014 5:31:28pm

I agree with Jane here nunga... the e-cigs are using synthetic chemicals to mimic nicotine and thus be "legal" by the back door. The retailers won't tell you this and become evasive when you ask them or lie.

Synthetic chemicals are similar to those that mimic cannabis or amphetamines etc. They are untested and effects on the body are unknown, especially over the long term.

I too am a smoker but would not risk these engineered chemicals .At least tobacco is a known quantity. See my post just above

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 6:03:37pm

Wrong, e-cigs, or more accurately personal vapourisers, use the same nicotine as is used in all pharmaceutical NRT products, and do not use synthetic chemicals to mimic nicotine, they use actual nicotine. The nicotine used is extracted from naturally grown tobacco.

Nicotine is also optional in the liquid used in vapourisers, some people vape liquid that is nicotine free.

The other ingredients that make up the liquid are propylene glycol, which is used in asthma inhalers, and many other food and beverages, and is generally regarded as safe, after many years of study on its effects.

Vegetable glycerine, another product that is generally regarded as safe, and used in a huge variety of commonly used products.

Flavourings, derived from food flavours, these are also optional.

I know exactly what is in the liquid I vape, because I make it myself.

The ability to customise both the vape hardware, and the liquid used, (being able to self titrate the level of nicotine), is what makes personal vapourisers a very successful tool to quit smoking tobacco.

din:

I don't smoke, and I enjoy that people cannot smoke around me, but this this article is missing one 'minor' point

if the rate of smokers was 24.3% in 1991, what was the rate of smokers in 2010 ?

We know they have the figures since the quote the 2013 figure of 12.8%. and they point out of increased rate in non smokers from 2010 and 2013, but they are very deliberate in leaving out the rate of smokers in 2010.

I expect it will show that smokers have declined between 1991 and 2010 - all the years before plain packaging come in.

at least they mentioned that the prices have been increased every year since 2011. For some people, smoking is just too expensive.

Vince:

23 Jul 2014 10:45:12am

I think the article certainly pointed out that the numbers have been generally dropping since 1991, but that since 2013 there has been a record drop, so I don't get your point. They aren't trying to hide anything. Your point doesn't make sense.

din:

fair enough, sometimes I forget some people don't understand mathematics. So I will try a dummy guide to why this report is lose with the truth.

the article quotes several percentage.

24.3% percent smoke in 1991, 15.2% fall in people smoking between 2010 and 201312.8% percent smoke in 2013

Now while 24.3, 12.8 and 15.2 are all percentages, they shouldn't be compared against each other since the 15.2 percentage is coming from a different set of numbers than the numbers where the 24.3 and 12.8 percentages are coming from. And that's the case, since the percent of smokers, and the fall of people smoking, are not the same thing.

The author knows the percentage of smokers in 2010, but they are not releasing it. I cant say for sure why, but I feel they wanted to avoid people getting a clearer understanding of the rate of smoking participation before and after plain packaging.

they should have just released the figures, and rested on their case they smoking is declining (which I agree with). We can then argue on why.

Jimmy Necktie:

23 Jul 2014 9:31:06am

"Thursday July 17, 2014 is unlikely to be a date that the global tobacco industry will ever forget." Oh please, you may consider it a war but they just consider it business with increasing constraints.

I find the sense of glee and puffery in this article unseemly. You brought in a policy, it seems to have worked as intended, move on with some grace.

schneids:

Jimmy Necktie:

23 Jul 2014 12:26:15pm

sure is schneids, however I give credit to individuals who made a choice based on information. If the government wants to take credit then ban it, but don't stick your hand out for revenue from a legal product while at the same time trying to make political capital by claiming to be "driving a stake into the heart" of Big Tobacco (the "big" makes them evil-er, by the way).

Dove:

Jimmy Necktie:

Hi Dove, I'm not quite following you but I will say the difference between suicide and murder is one of free will.

I am all for government trying to persuade people via education, and I will tolerate the high taxes and plain packaging because if I squint a little I can put it under "persuasion".

But I am opposed to government taking away free will and I think it's crass for them to be crowing about "their" successes against the evil tobacco empire as if we are to thank them for making up our minds for us. Nobody quit smoking because the pretty colours went away, I don't care how many correlations they trot out.

nexus:

23 Jul 2014 9:39:16am

The really disappointing aspect of all of this is the role of The Australian newspaper.

As others have pointed out, what once was a quite good news source has turned into a "cash for comment" affair.Not only the tobacco industry claims, but also climate change denialism. Its a national embarrassment that our PM would go to such great lengths to praise them, only weeks after their 3 news headlines sponsored by big tobacco.

TonyOneTrickPony:

23 Jul 2014 9:50:32am

The book that won the Miles Franklin this year was really well written and a good story. It may have deserved to win, but I couldn't help but notice it seemed to have a lot of product placement for a certain brand of cigarette. One of the judges of the award was from The Australian and the book's publishing company is owned by Murdoch. The problem with big tobacco is that it seems to cast a cloud over everything.

garybenno:

23 Jul 2014 9:55:18am

Anything that wrecks the tobacco industry should be applauded. The cost to the health system due to tobacco should be carefully calculated and the tax on tobacco should cover that cost at least, the cost of cleaning up the residue (litter) should also be added to the tax bill along with the cost of bushfires when live buts are proven to be the cause. That way those that continue to choose tobacco will fund their own health bill when the diseases finally catch up with them and they also fund the cleanup from their habit.If you are silly enough to smoke with all the information available today then be prepared to pay the full cost of your choice.

Common sense:

garybenno:

23 Jul 2014 10:01:00pm

Read my post again, that is what I was trying to point out. The tax on cigarettes should fund the health costs attributed to smoking. I am well aware there is a huge shortfall, which is why I say the tax should continue to rise. If you choose to smoke then you should bear the cost of your eventual illness. There are already many medicos who are either reluctant or not prepared to treat many tobacco related illnesses if you do not commit to giving up and I think that is fair enough.

Ann:

23 Jul 2014 1:50:41pm

I'm not really sure the addictive desire to smoke and the conditions in which one does it are equivalent to ice... I see people smoke on lunch breaks and in the car. You can't exactly have some hard drugs mid-shift. Maybe some marijuana but any employer would notice the effects of a line of coke.

Also is there any evidence nicotine addiction is relieved by turning to other addictive/mind-altering substances? The only drug I can see people swapping to is marijuana.

din:

1) consumption isn't the same as profits.2) the consumption may not be for their brands

regarding profits. What is better - making $100 on a consumption of $1000 or making $50 on a consumption of $2000 ? The tobacco companies would prefer the $100

so why would profits be lower ? Since the packets no longer have expensive branding, its now easier to people to come into the market and sell their cheaper quality smokes. Plus people can now buy just on price, not brand.

Engaging:

23 Jul 2014 10:08:08am

That is really great news, so pleased to hear plain packaging is having an impact. Hopefully this will encourage other countries to stand up to big tobacco.

I gave up smoking just over 12 months ago due to plain packaging. At one stage before i quit, i found the least offensive packet and transferred my new cigarettes into that. But in the end, i decided it was the right time. So far so good.

lovewhiteboats:

23 Jul 2014 10:13:39am

Wonderful news. As the numbers of smokers drop, even more people will realise how unpleasant smoking really is and demonise smokers for the smelly, social pariahs that they are. Look how pleasant it is now walking through Queen St Mall now it is smoke free. As the anti smoking sentiment increases, I hope we see even more draconian restrictions and price increases on this filthy "passtime" MMC! which is an absolute killer on the public purse. If people want to smoke, make them pay for their own health care as they hasten their pathway to the grave

Caffettierra Moka:

23 Jul 2014 10:19:52am

The 'chop chop' industry, although illegal, is a little reminder of how cozy the industry used to be. Australia used to have a domestic tobacco growing industry. One that was heavily subsidised by state and federal govenments too - up to the 1980s. As there was the seeds and expertise available, the stuff continues to grow and flourish now in a black market. The only consolation is that the profits don't go to British American Tobacco.

In 1985 the Federal Govt started to target smoking by advertising, banning smoking in the workplace and punitive measures (mostly making them more expensive). There was a lot of whining from the industry then. And smoking rates went down, and continue to do so. And the industry continues to whine. The mantra this time is 'personal freedom' - some sort of appeal to protecting the individual's choice. Nope, it is the same guff they served up when it was obvious that the taxpayer wouldn't keep paying to protect the industry. One victory for the good guys this time.

Joe_B:

23 Jul 2014 10:28:02am

Yes I agree with all the comments the affirmative and the negative but lets take this a step further and start attacking the alcohol industry as well, I mean surely you recognize that alcohol is just as big a killer if not bigger than smoking or is dying by alcohol socially acceptable. by the way I smoke (trying hard to quit) but I don't drink.

Joe_B:

23 Jul 2014 1:27:50pm

Terry, your comment has a point, as a youngster I worked in the tobacco fields in Wangarrata North of Melbourne for those that don't know the place and let me tell you that the chemicals that go in to the cigs are put there by the manufacturers not the farmers, also its a known fact that tobacco alone in its natural state does not promote the growth of cancer, it is the added chemicals ( basically to make them burn quicker and to make the tobacco last longer on the shelf) that do that, if the government was interested in the health of society it should be regulating the use of these harmful substances by big companies but instead has been quite happy to collect taxes and other forms of revenue directly related to the consumption and manufacturing of the "cancer Sticks" as you put it.

Caffettierra Moka:

23 Jul 2014 3:56:28pm

Ummm, no. Very quickly after tabacco use was introduced to English and European society doctors started to report the connection between use and disease. One published a work in 1602 listing the health risks such as 'blockages of the lungs' and 'consumptions' (ie growths) and points out that usage leads to addiction. Certainly 400 years ago they wouldn't have been adding the number of chemicals they do today, but it still killed.

GCS:

23 Jul 2014 10:33:01am

I lost a very cloes friend to lung cancer. Like climate change deniers now she was in denial as to the harm tobacco was doing to her.She preferred to believe the Merchants of Doubt (good book- worth reading)the tobacco industry used to muddy the science.

We now have the same merchants of coubt operating on behalf of the fossil industry =and the same deniers as my friend.

Ann:

nunga:

23 Jul 2014 2:39:09pm

How do you figure that Ann, all it means is that when asked people will lie about whether they smoke or not, because there is so much vilification of smokers. It does nothing to help people quit, merely removes accurate information from the public sphere.

nunga:

Or people are simply smoking slightly less, (its a very slight drop in sales), that could be down to the tax increases, much more so than people actually giving up and becoming non smokers.

The survey results show a continuation of a trend, but from the results I read, there was actually an increase in smoking in young people, including teenagers, after plain packaging was brought in. This may be significant or not, but to claim success of a policy is pre-mature.

I actually don't have a problem with the policy of plain packaging, and support moves to try and prevent children taking up the habit, but this campaign seems more about being seen to be doing something, than actually making any real impact.

ex smoker :

23 Jul 2014 11:02:31am

what utter rubbish I don't believe one single smoker stopped because of the colour of the packet. they stop because they are bad for your health cost to much and various other reasons but not because of the packaging. the do gooders patting them self on back over nothing

garybenno:

23 Jul 2014 4:00:53pm

"what utter rubbish I don't believe one single smoker stopped because of the colour of the packet" Speaking of utter rubbish ex my old friend your post resembles that a bit. The plain packaging was done to force producers to identify how bad smoking is for you and decrease the attractiveness to younger people, and you go on to say people quit because they come to realise it is bad for your health. That is exactly what the packaging seeks to teach, my take on it is maybe it won't stop smoking but I think sinificantly more than none made the decision to quit due to the new laws.

lovewhiteboats:

23 Jul 2014 11:18:45am

I dont disagree with you Mark James however I would imagine that the truly committed hard core smokers will continue come hell or high water. In terms of the outsider images, perhaps an advertising campaign highlighting what losers smokers are ..of the same ilk that the speeding ads with the attarctive woman waving her pinky at the speeder in question.Also absolute agreement that (binge) drinking needs a concerted effort to try and slow its ever increasing vile effects on society.

Ann:

R Supwood:

23 Jul 2014 12:24:40pm

Good old tobacco, that legal drug and huge money earner for those heartless sluts that dominate the right conservatives. The Australian is more than ever a nest of hired harlots typing up tripe and reshaping truth until lies look biblical and Rupert appeases his backers, his class types of exploitation. Poo.

Philosopher:

23 Jul 2014 12:34:18pm

To attempt to confuse the man-made Global Warming fraud with Tobacco industry PR is insane. My wife and I gave up smoking 30 years ago. I have watched people die ever since and regretted I could not encourage them to quit. It is critical that we properly educate our people not to smoke and help those that do to quit. The real answer is to punish these tobacco giants ruthlessly and we know who they are and where they are. Murdoch needs to be limited in power and his empire broken up and their penalised and taxed into extinction. We know the costs to society. There is no excuse for not acting.

A Phibes:

23 Jul 2014 12:47:17pm

What ludicrous rubbish. This assertion is nothing more than propaganda peddled to the ignorant masses by govco and lazy journalists. Why hasn't anybody raised the real reason: the fact that Australia has around the highest tobacco tax (and cigarette price) in the world? Price is the main reason - not packaging. I note a handful (mainly SE Asian) countires have followed Australia's idiotic lead with plain packaging and grizzly images (though unlike Australia they don't have the added idiocy of having to also hide the same from public view). Has there been any study in these other countries to prove any correlation of reduced smoking rates due to plain packaging? I doubt it. For the record, I'm a non-smoker and just fed up with Australia's endless nanny state rules and restrictions and meddling in every aspect of citizens' lives.

Dove:

Lehan Ramsay:

23 Jul 2014 1:00:36pm

I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are meaning when you use The Emperor's New Clothes to reference the situation with big tobacco. The Emperor and the entire kingdom are humbled by the rash honesty of a young person who doesn't know better? The Emperor is a man who relies on his courtiers to tell him the truth but is too afraid to verify the facts for himself? Those close to power have too much investment in lies to be able to deal in truth? Beware, your kingdom is being manipulated by a couple of shysters and everyone knows it?

Andrew Melvin:

23 Jul 2014 1:25:26pm

No better example of why The Australian is a rag not fit to blow your nose with, let alone inform you about world events.

I remember their headline - something like "Labor policy fails - smoking increases". On the front page banner headline. That newspaper doesn't hire fools - they had to have known they weren't representing the truth - but they print their lie anyway.

I feel sorry for people with less analytical minds than myself. They'll just accept the lie without any critical thought. Some may even be thinking of giving up smoking, but read that headline and then start thinking it might be too hard. So now, not only is The Australian printing lies, they are damaging people's health - for the sole cause of pursuing an ideological agenda against "the left". Such a disgrace.

garybenno:

23 Jul 2014 4:09:27pm

I'm with Morestone and Bill, I too used to seek out the Oz if I felt a need to read the news but it is now on the same list as the other useless biased rags. Thank god for the ABC online news. I don't mind any percieved bias from a daily paper, that is their right, but they should at least publish the other side to a story and let us make up our minds.

Mkay:

23 Jul 2014 2:14:24pm

Labor should get the credit for this outcome but it's more to do with price than plain packaging.

Between 1999 and 2010 there were NO increases in tobacco excise and customs duty on tobacco products apart from adjustments for CPI. Excise and customs duty was INCREASED by 25% on 30 April 2010. I take the author's point about the timing of the survey in relation to the 2010 excise change, but someone who's heavily addicted isn't going to change their behaviour the day after a price increase.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has suggested a price elasticity of demand of -0.4. If you apply this to the price increase that has occurred over the last few years, the reduction is largely accounted for.

JessC:

23 Jul 2014 7:26:43pm

I agree that it's more to do with price than plain packaging, but I don't agree that Labor should get all the credit for the drop in smoking rates. Abbott and Pyne chose the pretty pics for the cigarette packs when the LNP was in power from 1996 (?) and that side of politics, despite its 'liberal' name, has always been far more aggressive about smoking than Labor ever was or is.

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 9:25:00pm

Howard didn't increase the excise because the Libs respect freedom of choice more so than the ALP/Greens. They still have a long way to go, but they're by far the lesser of two evils when it comes to trampling all over freedom of choice.

carbon-based lifeform:

23 Jul 2014 3:12:29pm

The plain packaging is mainly to stop young people from starting to smoke this drug-laden product.Back in the 70s or 80s, a survey found that 10-13 year-olds were more likely to smoke whatever the football sponsors were. Winfield in NSW for the League, and (I think) Peter Jackson for the VFL in Victoria.Stopping young people from taking up this disgusting habit is more important than trying to convince older smokers that they are drug addicts!

carbon-based lifeform:

Michael:

23 Jul 2014 3:34:31pm

As an adult I have the right to choose how I live my life - you simply do not have the right to dictate whether or not I choose to engage in practices/habits that are potentially dangerous and or unhealthy. Yes smoking is very bad for you, we all know this. But no one ever started or stopped smoking based on what the stupid packets look like, get real. Nicotine addiction transcends all of these politically motivated "anti-smoking" measures. If you think otherwise then clearly you have never been addicted to Nicotine. Blah blah Medicare, taxes blah blah. I pay tax too, guess what? You cannot control what others choose to do so just deal with it.

Stop being so arrogant and dogmatic as to think you have a right to tell others what should or shouldn't do. I am sick to death of this poxy nanny state they call Australia. At every turn people are telling you what to do, how to live your life, what is safe or not safe, implementing regulations to add to an already over regulated nation.

It's time people started minding their own business and encouraged others to take responsibility for their OWN actions! Australians do not value personal freedoms and are all too willing to let the government stick their nose into every aspect of their lives. Next it will be alcohol, then fast food, then whatever else The Man thinks is going to get them votes.

Butt out, do gooders! I resent your obsession with trying to control my life. Period.

well well:

Todd:

23 Jul 2014 5:20:40pm

Too right, Michael. It would be better if you lived in (insert ANY country here) as there you would not pay as high an excise or be subject to hate, ridicule and worst of ALL the holier than thou contempt that the majority of non-smokers show towards smokers. And the ex-smokers seem to be the most self-righteous, which is odd. They even will tell you about the health implications with a mobile phone an inch from their brains. Has anyone looked at what clinical studies of mobile radiation had on the brains of mice. I advise all Lefties to have a look, being that you are all so concerned about the health of others.

JessC:

23 Jul 2014 7:09:55pm

Good point Todd about ANY country because I don't think Simon's stats take into account the increasing number of Australian smokers who have taken refuge overseas since 1991 - particularly to S.E. Asian countries - in order to avoid the 'persecution' they suffer in their own country; which is a joke, really, as our offshored asylum seekers receive cigarettes for free courtesy of Australian taxpayers!

schneids:

Common sense:

23 Jul 2014 5:27:18pm

Calm down.

You can still do anything you wish. No one's stopping you or trying to tell you you can't do anything.

But when your actions affect the health of others around you you can't be surprised. The fact that you don't seem to be able to grasp the point that your habit affects people around you speaks volumes.

schneids:

23 Jul 2014 8:30:46pm

Dear do badder,

No one's trying to control your life. We're simply trying to reduce the harm from the world's most dangerous drug by reducing consumption. Plain packaging works - the statistics prove that - why do you think the tobacco industry is squeeling like a stuck pig about it?

MD:

23 Jul 2014 4:23:06pm

There was also the breathtaking $23.6 billion punitive damages awarded against RJ Reynolds the other day, too. Reynolds has just merged with Lorelei in an attempt to reinforce itself, they'll appeal and probably have the award overturned, if US historical precedence is anything to go by (it was Karen Silkwood that I was reminded of, because the award was to a victim's survivor, and the corporations can always outspend them in litigation), but awards of this magnitude must make them increasingly nervous. They've all attempted to diversify into areas of business that aren't as exposed to massive litigation (there aren't many businesses that constitute a potential license to kill every customer, after all). What used to be Philip Morris is now the peak shareholder of Kraft/Mondelez, Lorelei went into insurance years ago, Reynolds used to own Nabisco before it went to Kraft, and there was even a rumour doing the rounds fifteen years ago that Rothmans was going to divest tobacco in favour of satellite broadcasting - but our favourite news vendor probably made that less attractive. Quitting took me ten years, so I take satisfaction at the notion of the industry in its death throes. There's no gain being bitter about what it cost me, but it's a failure of civilisation that the people who profit from a product that inflicts illness and death won't be making reparation before they steer their capital into other businesses. These figures will hurt the share price of tobacco businesses, though, so perhaps it might be worth thinking about freezing their share trade, making shareholders retain their interest until the business' profitability finally flickers out, something like the old-time expectation that a vessel's captain would lash himself to the mast for the duration of hazardous weather . If the ship didn't survive, the captain paid for it. Just a thought....

ScottBE:

Prof Chapman you have been conducting your campaign against tobacco for over 30 years now using statistics with dubious collection methods.

You have had fantastic success through you activism and have brought Australians to an awareness of how damaging tobacco can be. I congratulate you on your success.

When are you going to use your great knowledge of Public Health and apply your devotion to alcohol and gambling as the tremendous threat to public health?

While you have made a great difference to tobacco dependency the alcohol and gambling industries have been flourishing and causing far greater harm than tobacco has ever done.

As a smoker, I do respect your efforts to prevent the uptake of tobacco by young people (although young people seem to be ghoulishly fascinated by the images on tobacco packets: these are having a counter-productive impact). But I have yet to see you write on the "evils"/harm of alcohol or gambling.

Will you please balance your efforts and begin telling people and lobbying as you did/do against tobacco companies about the tremendous harms being committed by the unhindered alcohol and gambling industries?

JessC:

23 Jul 2014 7:03:42pm

Scott, you're wasting your time asking Simon to put some effort into the gambling industry because his expertise, I believe, is in drug, alcohol and tobacco use (as per The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare).

As a mother, though, I do share you concerns about alcohol - but what about drugs, too?

Anyway, I fail to see how the "principal target of plain packaging legislation" is the 12-17 year age group when they can't legally buy cigarettes, but if Simon's intention is to save lives - I hope it is - then I'd like him to give tobacco a rest and place more emphasis on educating kids about drugs and alcohol because these kill our kids when they're young, not when they're old (like smoking does).

Simon Chapman:

23 Jul 2014 7:39:22pm

Scott, gambling & alcohol are obviously very serious social problems. I have a family member who has had serious problem with one of those. There are many other heath and social problems that could be added to such a list, and i privately and sometimes publicly try to make a contribution to several issue I personally feel strongly about. But can I put it this way. Would you say to (say) a melanoma prevention specialist "why don't do something about diabates?" or to a homelessness activist, "domestic violence is worse!" If you think about it, it's a little unfair to expect us all to do something about every problem, no?

JessC:

JessC:

23 Jul 2014 6:55:03pm

"In December 2013, this figure had almost halved to 12.8 per cent, the lowest in the world after Sweden ....the percentage fall between 2010 and 2013 was a record 15.2 per cent"

Simon, I don't think Sweden's status as No.1 non-smoking country is due to plain packaging, and if you take snuff into account the Swedes are probably bigger tobacco users than we are - making us No.1.

The implementation of plain packaging in December 2012 may very have played a part in Australia's decline in smoking, but in your list of plausible candidates youforgot to mention the massive excise increase imposed by Kevin Rudd, with bi-partisan support, when he supplanted Ms Gillard as PM prior to the September 2013 election.

Simon Chapman:

23 Jul 2014 7:43:02pm

Jess, please read the article again. I do mention the May 2010 tax. The first 5 months after that tax coincided with the data collection period PRIOR to this current survey, and so would have been reflected in the fall reported in the PREVIOUS report's fall.

Nobody:

23 Jul 2014 7:36:55pm

Well Simon, I'm a little less trusting of our "benevolent" corporate state than you appear to be. I'm awaiting the outcome of the latest round of ultra-secret TPP, TTIP and ISDS negotiations before declaring victory over the tobacco industry or any other big global corporates. Regardless of the final outcome, it seems to me very likely that, in future, issues surrounding health, environment and energy will be effectively removed from the hands of democratically elected parliaments and shifted into the courtrooms of the world. Whether something is or is not in the national interest or the interests of people's health and wellbeing is immaterial. What counts is the interpretation and application of the law (note: not justice, the law). Welcome to 'Free Trade'. Welcome to 'The Corporate State'. It will be a long, expensive legal battle to get our national sovereignty and democratic freedoms back.

James In Footscray:

24 Jul 2014 6:53:28am

'The jubilant blogger took the trouble to construct a bold graph ... for five of 10 data cells that made up the figures, the standard error was more than 50 per cent ("too unreliable for general use") and another two cells with lower standard errors "should be used with caution")'

That's just not true.

Yes, seven numbers in the spreadsheet are labelled as unreliable. But they're not the numbers used in the graph on Puddlecote's blog.

The AIHW figures show - without qualification - the number of 12-17-year-olds smoking daily rose from 2.5% to 3.4% in the period 2010-2013.

See table three, first row: http://www.aihw.gov.au/alcohol-and-other-drugs/ndshs/2013/data-and-references/

VetTeacher:

24 Jul 2014 6:59:48am

The plain packaging of tobacco products presents an interesting insight into the potential problems raised by catch-all clauses in so called "free-trade" deals.

The suggestion that any Australian government can be challenged in court by a commercial organisation operating inside or outside this country because a policy decision may damage their business model is worrying to say the least.

Just how far do these policies extend?. If the conditions of sale of a product positively identified as a major health risk cannot be legislated by Australian governments what else could these trade clauses control.

It took years of effort on the behalf of many people to finally stare down the tobacco industry and allow the linkage between smoking to be acknowleged. Various chemicals and asbestos have been found to be equally injurious to health but only after having to disprove similar campaigns by the producers of these products.

Are health warnings and WHS requirements the next things to be challenged because they get in the way of an overseas entity conducting business as they see fit in Australia.

I think we should always be very careful about what we wish for. Improving trade relationships is of course a primary concern for all governments. Abdicating your right as a country to legislate for the good of your own citizens surely should not be a requirement for completing such trade agreements.

The campaign against plain packaging may just be the "Trojan Horse" needed to produce the legal precedents for challenging all manner of Australian laws and requirements. ( Not least of which are industrial relations agreements)

Avargo:

24 Jul 2014 7:22:55am

I've never understood the term "plain packaging" here. If anything the current packaging of ciggies is abysmally horrid.

If the current style of packaging is not a negative impact on sales for the tobacco companies then they have nothing to worry about. Surely it's business as usual for them and they shouldn't care a fig for anybodies statistics that say otherwise .

I'm just bloody glad I came to my senses and overcame the will of my former addiction to the death sticks as I un-lovingly like to refer to cigarettes. For me, this occurred before the packs changed.